On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Sean Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am ok with a breaking change as long as it is clearly called out in the > release notes. I am worried that someone will get caught off guard by this > break. > IMO, if it isn't a significant effort we should deprecate the old way in 0.22 and go with the optional support for Require.js. > On Jun 16, 2013 11:08 PM, "Erin Noe-Payne" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hey All, > > > > As I mentioned in the rave-angular thread, Require.js will be an > > important part of the angular branch architecture. I am thinking it > > would be reasonable to introduce AMD support into the trunk even > > before we release the angular branch, to offer the performance > > benefits sooner and to introduce the new paradigm. My initial thought > > is to make AMD support optional and off by default, to avoid breaking > > changes. That would involve... > > > > - A couple new rave core and rave portal js files introduced to align > > with require.js modules, jsp tags updated accordingly. > > - Each of those js files checks for the existence of requirejs in the > > environment and wraps itself in a define() if yes, otherwise acts the > > same as before. > > > > In this scenario anyone who wanted to take advantage of require.js > > would need to do some amount of overlaying to introduce require, > > update the script jsp tags, and so on. > > > > Alternatively, if there is interest we could introduce require as a > > breaking change for 0.22 and integrate the require.js optimizer into > > the build process. The advantage would be no need to overlay to get > > AMD support, the disadvantage is any implementation updating to 0.22 > > would need to update their container scripts to be compatible with > > AMD. In either case this would have no impact on gadgets. > > > > Thoughts? > > >
